MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621284200 · doi:10.1080/23262133.2017.1317692

Effects of Isx-9 and stress on adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Experimental considerations and future perspectives

2017· article· en· W2621284200 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis E.B. Bettio, Joana Gil‐Mohapel, Anna Patten, Natasha F. O’Rourke, Ronan P. Hanley, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Jeremy E. Wulff, Brian R. Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurogenesis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsNeurogenesisHippocampal formationSubgranular zoneDentate gyrusNeuroscienceContext (archaeology)HippocampusChronic stressPsychologyBiologyStem cellNeural stem cellCell biologySubventricular zone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of synthetic small molecules capable of promoting neuronal fate in stem cells is a promising strategy to prevent the decline of hippocampal function caused by several neurological disorders. Within this context, isoxazole 9 (Isx-9) has been shown to strongly induce cell proliferation and neuronal differentiation in the subgranular zone (SGZ) of the hippocampal dentate gyrus (DG), while also improving hippocampal function in healthy mice. We have recently demonstrated that Isx-9 is able to restore normal neurogenesis levels after procedural stress. Here, we further discuss these findings highlighting the importance of including a naïve group in studies investigating the effects of either restraint stress or mild chronic unpredictable stress (CUS) on adult hippocampal neurogenesis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurogenesisSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207